User talk:Goethean: Difference between revisions

goethean is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives: 2004 2005 2006

This edit warring has to stop. I am warning all parties involved. I am also not going to be a mediator in this content dispute. But I am warning all three of you, if anymore diffs I see are revert warring on this article or any other related article, all three of you will be reported for 3RR vioations. Please don't put yourself and others in conflicts which result in edit warring. Please discuss this until resolved and then make the appropriate change, ok? — The Future 19:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goethean,

Here a user makes a personal attack on you. He has gotten one warning after having made a number of personal attacks (4) on me, two instances of unfounded slander and one instance of libel. Feel free to ask for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Golden_Wattle to give him a second warning. When making a third personal attack, he'll be blocked. If you'd be interested in contacting me personally my email address is found here Thanks, --Thebee 21:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not find the words A new editor in the Waldorf revisionist tag-team has arrived to delete the quotes revealing Steiner's racist comments. This time they deleted the following: ... that were contained in the diff you drew to my attention, a personal attack. As per Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Examples that are not personal attacks - the statement to my mind falls within the scope of Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks The poicy states It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret such comments as personal attacks. It probably would be better if PeteK did not characterise editors as "the Waldorf revisionist tag-team" but it isn't over the top.

In relation to the stance you and other editors have taken on removing the quotes from the Steiner article and have them in the article Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity, I do not find the edits totally appropriate. The brief one paragraph in the main article that remained after your edit to remove the quote seems to wriggle around the subject. The current version contains some quotes and I find inclusion of some quotes a more balanced approach. There is no sense from the one paragraph on the subject of Steiner's views n race, that Steiner made such comments as the one consistently removed on the blacks in Africa as per this diff - it has been removed several times. I note that removed quote does not appear in the subsidiary article. Similarly the quote you removed [1] doesn't appear in the subsidiary article.

On the talk page you made mention of the article being too long. The article is just over 50 kb long - slightly longer than preferable but not excessive in length. I don't think it has to be cut down in size, but if I was going to cut anything I would cut the extenal links section first. If a link is not a note or reference within the article, it is not a necessary link - see WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links... Some of the bibliography mentions he wrote on topics but does not give the writings - for example the section on "The Arts" lists topics but no works. That he has written on the arts is further up the article thus that subsection for example seems repetitive and adds nothing. The "Works about Steiner by other authors" could possibly go, if the works are not used as references to the article they also probably have no place. The point being, if you want to reduce the size of the article, please start elsewhere than remving quotes on race. If you remove content, please make sure it is indeed put into the subsidiary article. At the moment the subsidiary article to my mind is barely readable - it definitely needs a lot of work. I get no sense of where Steiner got his views, how they fit in the context of the time, and the stringing together of quotes is almost done in a way that hides them becasue they are un-navigable. Further, as I have already mentioned, some of the more controversial quotes removed from the main article aren't mentioned in the subsidiary article.--Golden Wattle ^talk 21:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You asked I find User:Pete K's additions to be consistently unhelpful. Any help that you can provide in resolving the situation wuold be appreciated.

Wikipedia does have a dispute resolution mechanism - see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. It may be that you wish to go down the path of a request for comment on a specific article or series of articles or you want may want to seek comment on a user's conduct. In the latter case, before filing the Request for Comment, you need to be clear what policies or guidelines you perceive the user to be breaching.

From my perspective, User:PeteK is attempting to stay within the guidelines, however, he does have a strong point of view. Other editors who are dealing with him also appear to have a strong point of view. It should be possible for all editors to deal with each other civilly and good balanced wikipedia articles written which meet the guidelines of verificability and neutral point of view. I realise that "should" is sometimes difficult and painful to achieve.

I think the Wikipedia:WikiProject Waldorf Project would be a good place to discuss issues and come to a position on a way forward that represents balance and neutrality and produces good articles on the topics. I would commend a discussion there as a first step before escalating the issue to any Requests for Comment (RfC). Specifically for example, you could, if you wished, put up a proposal seeking concensus on how to deal with issues of Steiner's comments on race at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Waldorf Project Proposals, seeking concensus as to what an appropriate balance of views are, how best to develop the article, Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity - ... I note PeteK has signed us as a member of the project. Regards Golden Wattle ^talk 00:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The project context you suggest concerns another subject, with few participants. There exists an almost unused relevant Talks page for the subject. Why not use that Talks page for discussion of the article for which it is intended to be used? --Thebee 08:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACriticism_of_Upanishads&diff=73697243&oldid=69396350

Plus, please contact User:Bakasuprman for further details. He led the debate on Upanishads.Also, see talk page of Talk:Upanishad and you will see that there was a move to create a separate article on Criticism per precedent with articles on Bible and Criticism of the Bible.Hkelkar 18:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah dont merge it. The reason is discussed on the Upanishads talk page, and a couple of hastily written angry jibes on the Criticism of Upanishads talk page will clear this up. Also User:Yeditor is the editor who inspired me to write the page, so he could fill it with "scholarly criticism" of the Upds. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, in reference to your editing on Tammy Duckworth and Peter Roskams article you wish to remove "op-ed" entry by Dennis Byrne of the Chicago Tribune, which I have added to the Tammy Duckworth Article, but you seem to approve of a Eric Zorn's article on the Peter Roskam article. The question is "what's your standard???" is it different for different candidates for congress??? Note, you remove the one, then you will have set precedent for the other. You cant have it both ways. For the interested readers see... [|Eric Zorn] [| Dennis Byrne]

Thank You Chitownflyer 14:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean, you'll be glad to know that I finally encountered the word 'polymath' in general reading — yesterday in the Economist. Perhaps it's only in general usage in British English? Sca 16:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cool pic at Konigsberg!!

Yeah, too bad it's not Königsberg anymore. Many say it's now the ugliest city in Europe.

Sca 21:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your comment about the entries you made and then had reverted. I am hoping you weren't refering to me as a "randbot" just because I've been arguing that she is a major philosopher. I'm not a student or fan of eastern thinkers, but I wouldn't exclude any reasonable entry that you made. I respect the WP policy of verifiability. That has been my argument. Other people try to make WP an exclusive club where only entries they approve of get to stay. I also try to be respectful to other and not call people names. It works out better that way. SteveWolfer 06:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take this matter to mediation or try other avenues of dispute resolution. The edit warring simply moves from one article to another related to Waldorf and Steiner, from talk pages, to user talk pages, into the article themselves, then around again we go - it's an endless circle of frustration for everybody concerned and tiresome as I'm sure you agree. Clearly a new set of "outside opinions" from other editors or mediators is required to resolve this ongoing debate. -- Longhair\^talk 21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Goethean. I noticed you have been, at least recently, the more active contributor at the Alvin Plantinga article. You may be interested in knowing that an article about the Evolutionary argument against naturalism was created yesterday. And that it is already nominated for deletion. If you can contribute to the discussion it would be appreciated. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 17:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

Hgilbert 02:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected the Elmhurst article as per your protection request. However, I noticed while idgging through the article histroy that when you reverted anon vandalism, you twice yourself accidentally introduced some of the vandlaism they had put in the article. Not that this is horrible, but in the future please be more careful. Regards, RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rudolf Steiner. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

No they are not. South Asians are an ethnic group. There are at least seven distinct races in South Asia.By your logic I can also put Castes in Pakistan and Bangladesh in the article. Please understand.Hkelkar 15:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please debate this point in the talk page Talk:Indian caste system soon.Hkelkar 15:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goeth - I only removed mash / sparge from the culture section as I'd covered it in detail in the process section. I only full mash brew myself. I just wanted to avoid any edits preventing repetition gutting the process section at a later date... Can we discuss?

Goeth - thanks for the reply DavidP02 22:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goeth - Can I enlist your help in a couple of things. (No is a perfectly acceptible answer. I'm already getting grief from Mrs DavidP on this subject).

1) I've got a number of pictures to upload with permission for free to web release but the last time I did it, I was instantly edited out, I assume for reasons of not registering the pictures to the right license. What should I be doing?

2) I have a member of our brewing circle who is trying to seek out a rigger picture. He has a colleague who has use 4 pins to make a US-style brew rig, but the photo is not forthcoming and rigging is becoming very popular. so you know anybody with photos of their large rig who might like to spare one?

3) I'm a masher like yourself, but from a NPOV respect the plain truth is even in the homebrew culture there is a tendency to cornie keg rather than cask. I guess I shoudl reflect this? (I cask or bottle condition and always have BTW).

4) I've tried to keep out of how to and focus on the actual knowledge. Your comments much appreciated.

Regards

DavidP02 23:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed alot of information from John Courage because it lacked sources. WP:BLP encurages us to be quite strict about this kind of thing. The stuff I removed is still in the history, so feel free to revert me when you fine a source or two.

Thanks! ---J.S (t|c) 02:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Goethean, I'm Dumetoo and I'd like to direct your attention to Weimar Classicism which has been altered by Dume7. Could you give me your input about the article's style since you are about the only other person currently active that has also edited this article? Thanks, I'm still rather new here.-Dumetoo

I hope things get fixed back to the way they were. It would appear Dume7 has absolutely no knowledge of W. C. and that is a serious problem.-Dumetoo

Hi - I thought it might be useful to have a side conversation on something, rather than taking it to the talk page. By "wikipedia policy" I meant that I've seen duplicate links removed on other pages, without anyone objecting, and I've removed duplicate links many times without anyone objecting.

I hope that upon reconsidering you'll see the reasonableness of that approach. There are articles I've edited that have more than 50 footnotes/references - if any should be included in external links as well, how would one decide that? John Broughton | Talk 23:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you find the removals of duplicate links to be a violation of WP:NPOV. I hope you've noted that I fully agree that thos links are good ones - I added text to the Weller article from those two articles because I thought they were important. So we're not arguing about their worth, just whether they should appear once each, or twice each.

If you really think I'm being POVish here, would you mind citing some specific part of the NPOV policy that you think I'm violating by removing duplicate info? I looked through the policy just a moment ago, and I couldn't find anything. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am noticing the same sort of patterns of IP edits occurring again. This is why I had advocated a sort of holding pattern for articles of an immediate political nature, and setting up some protocols or early warning system (the nature of which within WP rather eludes me). Did I follow the right format for reporting the problem? What errors could I have avoided in protocol? Please contact me via email or IM (arcayne_1@yahoo.com, Yahoo IM: arcayne_1). Getting some direct heads up would be helpful.Arcayne 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you speedily removed the afd tag I put to Neem Karoli Baba. I would like to know your reason for that (aside from the noobie crap you inserted as edit summary). Skobelief 17:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on M. Alan Kazlev, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please write {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Missvain 17:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a current request for arbitration relating to the articles Waldorf education, Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner and Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity. Hgilbert 01:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom or Great Britain by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 03:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you have earlier made some comments on her on Kazlev's talkpage. As you may know, the article on her was deleted on I think flimsy grounds. Thinking that she is a notable person, I have created a new article on her, which was marked for speedy deletion by another user. I thought maybe you would be interested to say something about her notability. Regards, --Mallarme 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help_desk#Blocking_a_user He's trying to block me.--D-Boy 05:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you're planning to do and I can't say it bothers me a great deal. Have fun in your own little sandbox.Patto1ro 22:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Maybe you could add any examples that I may have missed. — goethean ॐ 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't like to spoil your fun. You obviously have a lot of time on your hands and need something to keep you occupied.Patto1ro 06:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I woke up in a good mood this morning, so here's one for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M%C3%A4rzen&diff=next&oldid=84903512 Patto1ro 06:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

index.php?title=Talk:Taxila&action=history--D-Boy 21:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so what is the solution to this problem?--D-Boy 23:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

excellent suggestion....I think this should applied to many others. especially indus valley sites, harrapa, and buddhist sites.--D-Boy 23:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First read our Varnas, holy Vedas and Geeta before making comments. Hindushudra 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misunderstand. There is nothing insulting to call any Hindu a shudra. Understand Varnashrama dharma in a present situation. Also read ShivDharma concept in Maharashtr. If Maratha feel insuting to be called as Shudra then you can convert to other religion. Being lower-cast to Brahmins is Dharma for every Hindu. Shudra123 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Keep comments on my discussion Page. Don't vandalise my user page. Shudra123 09:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting the beer articles. I am filing a complaint against you for uncivil behaviour and I will be happy to add this activity on your part to the complaint. If you don't know enough about beer to write an actual article, then leave the pages alone and work on subjects that you do know. Mikebe 16:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be in Lombard, actually. That particular bridge runs at slight angle, so the tall building in the background is just a bit east of I-355 and about 3-4 miles out. I'll look for it the next time I'm in the area. —Rob (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, three examples from the country that invented the style and 12 from the US? No. And no war reverting please. Mikebe 16:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could I have access to the content of this page in order to add the content to the article on Michel Bauwens? — goethean ॐ 19:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User:Goethean/Pluralities-Integration. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goethean! Here's another attempt to redirect Burton brewing into English beer. I'm consulting this time, and giving, what I hope is, a decent explanation of the thinking behind my request. Cheers! SilkTork 17:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We worked on that together and there was a bit of a clash when I finished editing. I hope I haven't mangled anything you did. I think (I hope!) I brought my edit into line with yours. SilkTork 22:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. References are our great weakness at the moment. I didn't use them at first. Then I noticed that comments on the main Beer article mentioned referencing as being a weakness. It's certainly easier to do the referencing at the same time as doing the writing, rather than later. So this time round I'm going to put in references as I edit! I'm working on Oatmeal stout now, and I have all my references around me ready! (Not that there's many - it's a beer that was largely created by Merchant Du Vin in 1977). SilkTork 23:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean. With respect to this, I see that you are correct. You have my apologies. --Backface 23:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very cute, there is no harrassment, and its not nice to besmirch someone's reputation... - ForrestLane42 15:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42[reply]